What do you think?
Rate this book
Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second-Century Reception
Jesus Creed Book of the Year 2018 What did Paul mean by "works of the law"? Paul writes that we are justified by faith apart from "works of the law," a disputed term that represents a fault line between "old" and "new" perspectives on Paul. Was the apostle reacting against the Jews' good works done to earn salvation, or the Mosaic law's practices that identified the Jewish people? Matthew J. Thomas examines how Paul's second-century readers understood these points in conflict, how their readings relate to "old" and "new" perspectives, and what their collective witness suggests about the apostle's own meaning. Surprisingly, these early witnesses align closely with the "new" perspective, though their reasoning often differs from both modern viewpoints. They suggest that Paul opposes these works neither due to moralism, nor primarily for experiential or social reasons, but because the promised new law and covenant, which are transformative and universal in scope, have come in Christ.
352 pages, Paperback
Published October 20, 2020
6 people are currently reading
185 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 11, 2025
This book is an excellent summary of what is at stake in the modern debates about what “works of the law” mean in Paul’s letters—as the debate between the “Old” and “New” Perspectives on Paul.
Based on a thorough look at the Fathers of the late first and second century, Thomas concludes that the Old Perspective, as seen in Luther and Calvin’s idea that “works of the law” meant “any good work in general,” is virtually nonexistent in the early church. He instead recommends the New Perspective on Paul, particularly as endorsed by NT Wright, which says that the “works of the law” were the ceremonial laws of the OT (food laws, circumcision, etc) which were not intended to make one righteous but to separate the Jews from other ethnicities for temporary discipleship purposes). It’s no wonder that NT Wright loved this book and called it “theologically explosive”!
At the end, though, Thomas challenges New Perspective enjoyers to hold their horses, as their theories do not fully account for what Paul meant to say. Thomas says that neither the Old or New Perspectives on Paul adequately account for the fact that Christ is the one who abrogated the Mosaic works of the Law. New perspective writers such as Sanders, Dunn, and Wright (in some books) say that it was Paul’s idea to abrogate the works of the Law as an ad hoc decision in his ministry.
Such an idea is nonexistent in the fathers, who Thomas shows are Paul’s most reliable readers since they are in living memory of him and share his culture, language, and circumstances.
The patristic idea, then, is that the consistent standard by which Christians should abrogate the ceremonial works of the Law is that Jesus Christ is the new Law Giver (ex. You have heard it said, but I say…) who, as St Irenaeus says, gives the “life-giving law” which vivifies, sanctifies, and justifies those who live in obedience to it.
For the fathers, justification is something that begins as an unmerited gift from God, but it is then continued and lived out in faithful obedience. This is why scripture can say both (1) we are justified by faith as a free gift (Rom. 3:24) and (2) that we are judged on the last day according to our works (Rom. 2).
Based on a thorough look at the Fathers of the late first and second century, Thomas concludes that the Old Perspective, as seen in Luther and Calvin’s idea that “works of the law” meant “any good work in general,” is virtually nonexistent in the early church. He instead recommends the New Perspective on Paul, particularly as endorsed by NT Wright, which says that the “works of the law” were the ceremonial laws of the OT (food laws, circumcision, etc) which were not intended to make one righteous but to separate the Jews from other ethnicities for temporary discipleship purposes). It’s no wonder that NT Wright loved this book and called it “theologically explosive”!
At the end, though, Thomas challenges New Perspective enjoyers to hold their horses, as their theories do not fully account for what Paul meant to say. Thomas says that neither the Old or New Perspectives on Paul adequately account for the fact that Christ is the one who abrogated the Mosaic works of the Law. New perspective writers such as Sanders, Dunn, and Wright (in some books) say that it was Paul’s idea to abrogate the works of the Law as an ad hoc decision in his ministry.
Such an idea is nonexistent in the fathers, who Thomas shows are Paul’s most reliable readers since they are in living memory of him and share his culture, language, and circumstances.
The patristic idea, then, is that the consistent standard by which Christians should abrogate the ceremonial works of the Law is that Jesus Christ is the new Law Giver (ex. You have heard it said, but I say…) who, as St Irenaeus says, gives the “life-giving law” which vivifies, sanctifies, and justifies those who live in obedience to it.
For the fathers, justification is something that begins as an unmerited gift from God, but it is then continued and lived out in faithful obedience. This is why scripture can say both (1) we are justified by faith as a free gift (Rom. 3:24) and (2) that we are judged on the last day according to our works (Rom. 2).
May 5, 2021
This book is a must read for anyone who is remotely interested or engaged in the debate between the old and new perspectives regarding Paul’s “works of the law”. While there is no better source for attempting to understand what Paul meant by “works of the law” than the voices of those who were closest to the issue, those perspectives have been largely unstudied. Thomas does an excellent job of identifying, analyzing, evaluating and contextualizing these second-century sources. Though his analysis can at times become a bit dry and somewhat repetitive, this repetition serves to highlight the point that the early church was incredibly consistent in its understanding of the meaning and significance of the works of the law. Additionally, while these early sources offer a wide variety of reasons as to why these works must be rejected, Thomas is able to powerfully synthesize common themes across authors.
The evidence is overwhelming that the view of the early church on “works of the law” was much more aligned with the “new” perspective, while the “old” perspective does not find support within the early Christian tradition. Yet perhaps the most enlightening aspect of the book is how Thomas outlines the diverse views within both the old and new perspectives. In doing so, he demonstrates that while the new perspective most accurately captures the scope and meaning of the term “works of the law”, the primary reasons for the rejection of these works amongst second-century sources differs from the reasons given by prominent new perspective voices (though he argues that Wright comes closest). Fundamentally, the primary reason the earliest sources reject the “works of the law” is because the Messiah has come in Jesus, ushering in a new covenant with a new law that supersedes and transcends the old covenant and old law. Therefore, the argument surrounding “works of the law” is not concerning meritorious works that supposedly earn one’s salvation on an individual basis (in fact, it’s not about “good works” at all), instead the debate is centered on the points of discontinuity between the old law and the new law.
The evidence is overwhelming that the view of the early church on “works of the law” was much more aligned with the “new” perspective, while the “old” perspective does not find support within the early Christian tradition. Yet perhaps the most enlightening aspect of the book is how Thomas outlines the diverse views within both the old and new perspectives. In doing so, he demonstrates that while the new perspective most accurately captures the scope and meaning of the term “works of the law”, the primary reasons for the rejection of these works amongst second-century sources differs from the reasons given by prominent new perspective voices (though he argues that Wright comes closest). Fundamentally, the primary reason the earliest sources reject the “works of the law” is because the Messiah has come in Jesus, ushering in a new covenant with a new law that supersedes and transcends the old covenant and old law. Therefore, the argument surrounding “works of the law” is not concerning meritorious works that supposedly earn one’s salvation on an individual basis (in fact, it’s not about “good works” at all), instead the debate is centered on the points of discontinuity between the old law and the new law.
June 23, 2021
This book has both challenged a lot of my priors and left me with a lot to chew on.
Dr. Thomas presents a convincing case based off the evidence we have that the readers in the 2nd Century would not have understood "Works of the Law" and the dichotomy that Paul sets up in Roman's and Galatians as "works vs faith" but actually more along the lines of NT Wright's "New" Perspective on Paul, that is specific works of the Torah such as circumcision among others.
The reasoning why we should reject those works varies by each document Dr. Thomas examines, but if you could sum it up it would look something like: "Christ has come abrogating the old law, and he has come with a new universal law of love."
The thought of Luther (and Calvin) on works of the law have very little, if any at all, purchase in the second century, which does mean the question of justification is a lot more open for me than before.
Dr. Thomas presents a convincing case based off the evidence we have that the readers in the 2nd Century would not have understood "Works of the Law" and the dichotomy that Paul sets up in Roman's and Galatians as "works vs faith" but actually more along the lines of NT Wright's "New" Perspective on Paul, that is specific works of the Torah such as circumcision among others.
The reasoning why we should reject those works varies by each document Dr. Thomas examines, but if you could sum it up it would look something like: "Christ has come abrogating the old law, and he has come with a new universal law of love."
The thought of Luther (and Calvin) on works of the law have very little, if any at all, purchase in the second century, which does mean the question of justification is a lot more open for me than before.
September 13, 2024
It is silly for someone like to review such an incredible work such as this one, but that hasn’t stopped me in the past!
My only complaint is the Greek wasn’t transliterated. I actually began the book, noticed this, deeply considered learning enough Greek so I could “say” the Greek as I read it, and went so far as to buy a textbook and workbook to make this happen. Hence the long delay from start to finish on this book.
While I waited to feel smart enough to self-teach Greek, I read many other challenging books and eventually decided muddling my way through with the Greek on this one would be more expedient.
Otherwise, wow! Mind blowing, really. Not having previously considered that Luther and Calvin had no legs to stand on regarding patristic support for their idea that Paul meant us to understand “works” as meritorious works for the purpose of salvation, I accepted the “New” perspective of N.T. Wright on my respect for his eminently greater knowledge on the subject and the fact that it made more sense in light of the recorded gospel preaching of Jesus himself. But it turns out the only perspective that can be found in the actual Early sources (who would, of course, be much more familiar with Paul’s meaning than a 16th century Catholic monk or those who would come after him) is close to the “new” perspective, and that not a hint of the “old” one can be found.
A must read if this topic interests you at all, and you, too, can probably get by without learning Greek.
My only complaint is the Greek wasn’t transliterated. I actually began the book, noticed this, deeply considered learning enough Greek so I could “say” the Greek as I read it, and went so far as to buy a textbook and workbook to make this happen. Hence the long delay from start to finish on this book.
While I waited to feel smart enough to self-teach Greek, I read many other challenging books and eventually decided muddling my way through with the Greek on this one would be more expedient.
Otherwise, wow! Mind blowing, really. Not having previously considered that Luther and Calvin had no legs to stand on regarding patristic support for their idea that Paul meant us to understand “works” as meritorious works for the purpose of salvation, I accepted the “New” perspective of N.T. Wright on my respect for his eminently greater knowledge on the subject and the fact that it made more sense in light of the recorded gospel preaching of Jesus himself. But it turns out the only perspective that can be found in the actual Early sources (who would, of course, be much more familiar with Paul’s meaning than a 16th century Catholic monk or those who would come after him) is close to the “new” perspective, and that not a hint of the “old” one can be found.
A must read if this topic interests you at all, and you, too, can probably get by without learning Greek.
February 20, 2022
This book is excellent. For those conversant in the “old perspective”, this research will challenge long-standing presuppositions. For those conversant in the “new perspective,” it will both confirm and reorganize essential attributes of that paradigm. For those completely unaware that there is such a thing as old or new perspectives on Paul, this book is both a concise introduction to the topic and a helpful source of rejoinders to protestors on either side of the debate.
It is one thing to imagine that the early Christian churches misunderstood Paul in some significant ways, especially those pertaining to works and law. It’s an entirely different matter altogether to prove it. This book proves such claims are, in the very least, questionable.
It is one thing to imagine that the early Christian churches misunderstood Paul in some significant ways, especially those pertaining to works and law. It’s an entirely different matter altogether to prove it. This book proves such claims are, in the very least, questionable.
June 19, 2025
Look forward to continuing this research and writing on Origen’s conceptions more in-depth.
October 24, 2021
This is a must-read for any Christians interested in understanding what the early Church believed about salvation.
In undertaking his phd, Thomas has methodically and dispassionately pored over the earliest post-biblical writings relevant for understanding Paul's "Works of the Law". The book is a comprehensive and more reader-friendly summary of Thomas's findings.
Countless books and commentators exposit the relevant passages in Romans and Galatians, yet arrive at diverse interpretations of what Paul truly meant by the term in question. Thomas effectively sidesteps these expositional disagreements by jumping back in time to the second century and diving through the treasure trove of church father writings to understand early perspectives on the issue. What he finds is a surprising level of consensus, yet I expect that the findings will challenge the priors of most readers, including both adherents of the Old and New Perspective on Paul.
The final chapter alone makes this book well worth the expense. I can only hope that Thomas fulfills his aspirations of writing a similar book on the patristic perspectives on soteriology!
As a minor warning, Thomas goes into a lot of detail in considering the dating, context and influences of each writing. Some may find these sections boring or uninteresting (I'll admit I found some parts a bit of a grind), but they are helpful in capturing the limitations and complexities of this kind of research (this is not to downplay the significance of Matthew’s findings). In any case, I would exhort you not to let this detail deter you from pushing through to the end (at least read the final chapter!).
In undertaking his phd, Thomas has methodically and dispassionately pored over the earliest post-biblical writings relevant for understanding Paul's "Works of the Law". The book is a comprehensive and more reader-friendly summary of Thomas's findings.
Countless books and commentators exposit the relevant passages in Romans and Galatians, yet arrive at diverse interpretations of what Paul truly meant by the term in question. Thomas effectively sidesteps these expositional disagreements by jumping back in time to the second century and diving through the treasure trove of church father writings to understand early perspectives on the issue. What he finds is a surprising level of consensus, yet I expect that the findings will challenge the priors of most readers, including both adherents of the Old and New Perspective on Paul.
The final chapter alone makes this book well worth the expense. I can only hope that Thomas fulfills his aspirations of writing a similar book on the patristic perspectives on soteriology!
As a minor warning, Thomas goes into a lot of detail in considering the dating, context and influences of each writing. Some may find these sections boring or uninteresting (I'll admit I found some parts a bit of a grind), but they are helpful in capturing the limitations and complexities of this kind of research (this is not to downplay the significance of Matthew’s findings). In any case, I would exhort you not to let this detail deter you from pushing through to the end (at least read the final chapter!).
January 23, 2023
Unassailable. That’s the first word I thought of after finishing this work. Helpful summaries, relevant sources, solid arguments, and a seemingly unavoidable conclusion; the ‘early perspective’ comports so much with the so-called ‘new perspective’ that the monikers of ‘old’ and ‘new’ perspectives ought to be flipped.
May 30, 2023
I highly recommend this work to any who are considering the questions raised by the old and new perspectives on Paul. This book has moved me further in the direction of the new perspective as Thomas makes a compelling case that the “smoke” left by the “fire” of Paul’s arguments points exclusively to an understanding of “works of law” as the Mosaic law, and not general good deeds.
Thomas also raises interesting points on the centrality of the law of Christ in the patristics rejection of the Mosaic law, and I would love to see more work done on this.
Overall, this book has removed one of the strongest barriers to the acceptance of the New Perspective in showing the historical strength of this view among the early church.
Thomas also raises interesting points on the centrality of the law of Christ in the patristics rejection of the Mosaic law, and I would love to see more work done on this.
Overall, this book has removed one of the strongest barriers to the acceptance of the New Perspective in showing the historical strength of this view among the early church.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews